Only 12 or 15 servers. Period.

[Riba.3271]

No need for link servers. All link servers do is mess up transfer costs to different tiers and kills servers.

 

If people still want to build low-pug servers, all they need to do is transfer to bottom tier cheaply and build up from there.

 

If the main problem is that some people lose their home server and others don't, then just instead make new servers with completely new names. Nobody fears getting whipped once as long as all other humans are whipped as well. How anet distributes the population is up for them to decide.

 

And alliances have been coming for like 5 years? I don't even remember anymore. It is not viable excuse anymore.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Ronin.4501]

1 hour ago, Threather.9354 said:

No need for link servers. All link servers do is mess up transfer costs to different tiers and kills servers.

 

If people still want to build low-pug servers, all they need to do is transfer to bottom tier cheaply and build up from there.

 

If the main problem is that some people lose their home server and others don't, then just instead make new servers with completely new names. Nobody fears getting whipped once as long as all other humans are whipped as well. How anet distributes the population is up for them to decide.

 

And alliances have been coming for like 5 years? I don't even remember anymore. It is not viable excuse anymore.

I hate to disappoint you, but a lot of the lower pop servers are nothing BUT pugs, at least on the NA servers.

[Riba.3271]

26 minutes ago, Ronin.4501 said:

I hate to disappoint you, but a lot of the lower pop servers are nothing BUT pugs, at least on the NA servers.

This is because current system allows, and even forces in lot of cases, people to transfer every 2 months anywhere. Since transferring leads to you having population advantage everytime and can be done cheaply, you do not even have to PPT to hit higher tiers.

So how 2-month cycle currently is:

1. Step 1: Relinking happens, every server has "equal" population
2. Step 2: Large percentage of players hop servers, usually to same servers. Not only boosting the population of "future" higher tier servers, but also dropping population of all other linkings.
3. Step 3: Only outnumbered pugs (unwilling to transfer) are remaining in lower tier servers

How it would work with no-link system:

1. Most stacked servers would be full (~T1), 1800 gems for decent sized servers (~T2), less for others.
2. Large amount of transfers wouldn't be able to overpopulate servers and would be incentiviced to transfer to lower tiers
3. These lower tiers would have less population, thus less pugs and pugmanders. If this group of transfers wanted to climb tiers, they would have to play for points sometimes instead of being carried by being overpopulated

Basically what I am trying to say is while mostly pugs exist in lower tier servers, that is because they were left outnumbered when lot of WvW-dedicated people transferred away (usually with 500 gems) at start of relinking.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Dawdler.8521]

You're just describing the world restructure system without alliances or any way to play together with your current guild since the new worlds per your idea would be random. 

That seems... rather boring. And I dont quite see how it's any good for the community.

[Riba.3271]

5 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

You're just describing the world restructure system without alliances or any way to play together with your current guild since the new worlds per your idea would be random. 

Nah, you misunderstood. Point was that there would be no link servers.

New world names would be just for equality so everyones servers would get deleted, not just lower populated ones (pointless but anet loves carebear philosophy). I do not know how they would arrange the servers but logically they would at least try to keep servers together.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Dawdler.8521]

17 minutes ago, Threather.9354 said:

Nah, you misunderstood. Point was that there would be no link servers.

New world names would be just for equality so everyones servers would get deleted, not just lower populated ones (pointless but anet loves carebear philosophy). I do not know how they would arrange the servers but logically they would at least try to keep servers together.

... and you're still describing world restructure without alliances/guild selections, referring to a diffuse "Anet arrange the population" method of creating them. I dont get it.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Riba.3271]

7 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

and you're still describing world restructure without alliances/guild selections, referring to a diffuse "Anet arrange the population" method of creating them. I dont get it.

I am literally describing is the system before world restructure just less servers? So no, it isn't world restructure, it is the system before it. So just servers, no links and no rearranging player population. Only thing that would change is population statuses and transfer costs alongside it.

Only reason I am describing it is because restructure was such a long time ago that I assume lot of people didn't play back then.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Dawdler.8521]

1 minute ago, Threather.9354 said:

I am literally describing is the system before world restructure just less servers? So no, it isn't world restructure, it is the system before it.

Yep, that's it. The current system with less worlds. If you have 5 tiers, then world restructure will have 15 roughly equal worlds after a shuffle, with new names. 

You're ignoring the part on how players are actually assigned in your idea. 

[Riba.3271]

10 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yep, that's it. The current system with less worlds. If you have 5 tiers, then world restructure will have 15 roughly equal worlds after a shuffle, with new names. 

You're ignoring the part on how players are actually assigned in your idea. 

I think you are forgetting 3 very important factors:

• Transfer costs will be based on total population on the server (so no 500 gem transfers to already stacked linkings in t1)
• There won't be relinkings changing populations
• I never said players will be shuffled around randomly away from their current guild or server mates. They can just do last linking with current servers, and thats it

So it is nothing like current system. It will have worlds and communities, not randomized tiers and mass transfers every 2 months.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Dawdler.8521]

6 minutes ago, Threather.9354 said:

I think you are forgetting 3 very important factors:

• Transfer costs will be based on total population on the server (so no 500 gem transfers to already stacked linkings in t1)
• There won't be relinkings changing populations
• I never said players will be shuffled around. They can just do last linking with current servers, and thats it

So it is nothing like current system. It will have worlds and communities, not randomized tiers and mass transfers every 2 months.

Nothing like the current system then, only far worse. 

What you're basicly saying is that for example Gandara is destined to be in T5 forever because they will never become a link or get a link, and also never get more players. 

Sounds positivly lovely. I'm sure they will be really encouraged to fight hard.

Is there some kind of solution to this problem? Whatever could it be???

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Riba.3271]

9 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

What you're basicly saying is that for example Gandara is destined to be in T5 forever because they will never become a link or get a link, and also never get more players. 

People can just transfer to Gandara then since it will have less population than tier 1 servers?? What do you not get about it?

I am saying that lower population servers like Gandara+no link will be 500 gems and overpopulated servers like SFR+UW would be full. Only difference is that SFR+UW would be only 1 server forever in the future. NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS HOW THEY SHOULD THE ARRANGE 12/15 SERVERS, THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.

I am trying to explain this as simple as I can but I do not understand why you don't understand that I am trying to fix the problem that people can transfer to overpopulated servers while underpopulated servers like Gandara are full. In addition to this it will fix several other problems like unbalanced matchmaking every 2 months, cheap transfers and transferring always leading to population advantage.

The tradeoff will be that lowest tiers will have less activity than higher tiers, but that is already the case: and actually lot of people prefer lower activity and quality.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Threather.9354 said:

People can just transfer to Gandara then since it will have less population than tier 1 servers?? What do you not get about it?

Why would people ever want to transfer there?

[CrimsonRise.7650]

It would of been nice to restructure WvW and it's populations during these past 4 years, which is basically that WvW overhaul as they announced in 2018.

So I doubt even now that, WvW is a high enough priority, to put alot of resources to work on multiple WvW projects instead of pve and future expansions, alongside the project(s) they just starting working on again recently.

Edited July 9, 2022 by CrimsonNeonite.1048

[Mabi black.1824]

20 hours ago, Threather.9354 said:

and mass transfers every 2 months.

this really is the mother of any balancing problem, the player can safely abuse to double the population where they decide to relocate and halve the population from where they moved.

every time I reflect on this I can never find the intelligent and constructive part that anet must have seen to draw a mechanic in this way and never considered modifying.

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

anet must have seen to draw a mechanic in this way and never considered modifying.

You DO realize this is in WvW right?  🤷

[Swagger.1459]

On 7/7/2022 at 10:18 AM, Threather.9354 said:

No need for link servers. All link servers do is mess up transfer costs to different tiers and kills servers.

 

If people still want to build low-pug servers, all they need to do is transfer to bottom tier cheaply and build up from there.

 

If the main problem is that some people lose their home server and others don't, then just instead make new servers with completely new names. Nobody fears getting whipped once as long as all other humans are whipped as well. How anet distributes the population is up for them to decide.

 

And alliances have been coming for like 5 years? I don't even remember anymore. It is not viable excuse anymore.

Just wait for alliances like everyone else. 

[Karagee.6830]

On 7/7/2022 at 7:34 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Nothing like the current system then, only far worse. 

What you're basicly saying is that for example Gandara is destined to be in T5 forever because they will never become a link or get a link, and also never get more players. 

Sounds positivly lovely. I'm sure they will be really encouraged to fight hard.

Is there some kind of solution to this problem? Whatever could it be???

Under this scenario Gandara would go overnight from full for 3 years to cheapest server to transfer to. I can see that already.

[Karagee.6830]

21 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Why would people ever want to transfer there?

Because we are awesome and possibly the last server in EU with a decently sized community that refuses to yield to Anet after being treated like lepers year after year after year. I never ever understood why they can't just make us like Baruch Bay and they have to double shaft us constantly while everyone else get shafted only once in a while and never double shafted (BB is permanently open).

[Lucy.3728]

Now I wonder why Anet didn't merge low populated servers with others to reach a single high population server. Would maybe have avoided the linking system.

It wouldn't be as flexible though. But maybe a more stable community could build.

(I dislike my current linking partner like no other ever before, those 8 weeks feel dragging like 6 months)

 

I'm playing on a low populated server (I think so at least, my server is always linked to some other server and never under its own name, like we already don't exist anymore). I wouldn't mind at all when my server would have been merged with any other server of my language instead of this linking around. Well at least I get to know new people about every 2 months.